Iraq Fading into Oblivion

Have we slipped into some alternate universe where the Iraq invasion and occupation never happened? One would think so considering the almost complete lack of attention given to it by all current presidential candidates - both Democratic and Republican - and the media covering the races. Of course, we expect some of the Republican candidates and Fox News to steer clear of the issue, due to their outright immorality, delusions of success in Iraq, and/or the fact that they know it is a loser issue for them. However, this trend is especially troubling coming from the Democratic side of the aisle. Whether they like it or not, the Democratic sweep of both houses of Congress in November 2006 was largely fueled by widespread opposition to the ongoing Iraq occupation. If we accept this to be true, it would appear that candidates giving Iraq only passing remarks and backseat status, is a profound insult to the American troops, and the Iraqi and American people at large.

Sure, all three of the so-called "top" Democratic contenders have now stated that the vast majority of troops will be "redeployed" from Iraq within their first year in office. They further stated that they would leave a contingent of troops for training and security purposes. All three have also, at one time or another, expressed opposition to "permanent bases" on Iraqi soil - although not maintaining permanent bases in Iraq, doesn't ensure that a Democratic president wouldn't establish new permanent structures elsewhere in the region as part of the "redeployment". But, there is a noticeable lack of emphasis on the Iraq disaster - an invasion and subsequent occupation that has taken the lives of nearly 4,000 Americans, unknown hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, unleashed sectarian violence of epic proportions and cost US taxpayers, depending on which estimate you prefer, between 1 and 4 trillion dollars - yes, you did read TRILLION.

How could this be? Shouldn't this issue be at least in the top two or three things to discuss in the three bazillion debates that have taken place so far? Maybe the pundits might want to discuss the candidates Iraq proposals? But no - apparently it is more important to discuss a virtually non-existent racial controversy between Clinton and Obama, or to discuss the "unfair treatment" Hillary has or has not received, or even the filthy, lie filled viral emails that accuse Obama of being some sort of Islamic extremist, or what Obama meant exactly when he cited Ronald Reagan as a president who changed the "trajectory" of the country. Who cares?

It would be really great if these self proclaimed candidates of "change" started reminding Americans of just how costly this Iraq travesty has been, as well as setting the record straight about the lies that led us there. However, while we should demand that the presidential candidates more often discuss their plans for Iraq going forward, this presidential race is probably the wrong venue for them to dredge up the numerous lies and exaggerations that paved the way for the epic disaster that is the Iraq occupation - that is better suited to folks like this author.

The Apologists

It is truly sad that there is still a significant percentage of the Americans that are unaware or unbelieving of the bottomless pit of lies spread by the Bush administration, their henchmen, and the compliant media in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In fact, a large percentage of those on the right still maintain that there are WMD hidden someplace. These people will probably swear to the grave that Saddam shipped his world threatening weapons to Syria - as if Iraq wasn't one of the most watched place on Earth in the in the years leading up to the invasion. They even refuse to believe Bush administration sanctioned reports that debunk the hidden WMD theories - such as Charles Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group report.

Even if they don't go as far as to subscribe to the moronic WMD in Syria theories, many will still attempt to exonerate the Bushies. We have heard all the rationalizations, everyone-thought-that-Saddam-had-WMD, or, isn't-the-world-better-off-now?, or, it's-not-Bush's-fault-that-the-intelligence-was-wrong.

Well, the responses to these ignorant and naïve statements are NO across the board.

WMD

As for WMD hidden in Syria, there is absolutely no evidence for this claim. While there was some pre-invasion traffic across the Syrian border, nothing suggests that any of it consisted of WMD materials. Still, when it started to become apparent that no weapons existed in Iraq, Bush administration officials such as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and even Colin Powell, speculated that weapons may have been transferred before the invasion. However, Charles Duelfer, chief of the Bush administration sanctioned Iraq Study Group, determined in his report that there is no evidence of this, and the best he could muster when questioned on it is that "he cannot say" whether any material observed crossing the Syrian border were WMD.

So, applying even a tiny bit of logic to this theory exposes it as highly unlikely. First of all, the American people were scared into thinking Saddam had massive stockpiles of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, right? Bush literally called Saddam Hussein and his alleged WMD a "unique" and "imminent" threat to the US and even the world. There were UN inspectors on the ground until just a few days before the invasion. So, how is it possible that such a formidable arsenal of weapons could be smuggled into Syria without anyone noticing? Well, the answer for any rational person is that it is not possible.

Lastly, given the penchant the Bushies have for rattling sabers and conflict, wouldn't it follow that the Bush administration would and should be raising hell toward Syria if it is seriously believed they are harboring Saddam's smuggled weapons? The fact that no one of any substance has anything to say about this tells us a lot. The bottom line is that the WMD in Syria theories are literally a fantasy - sparked by official speculation, but now the last refuge of the remaining idiot Bush apologists.

Another fallacy is the much more common - everyone-thought-that-Saddam-had-WMD. This is simply untrue. There were many knowledgeable people that disagreed that Saddam held some sort of threatening stockpile of WMD - too many to name in this article. But, the best examples of people who disagreed with US claims about WMD, are the individuals with the best perspective on this topic - a couple of real life weapons inspectors.

Referencing US and British claims about Saddam's alleged WMD stockpiles, Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), has said that while there was a list of items that were "unaccounted for","it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for." Blix has also said that sites inspected according to even the best intelligence provided to him by the United States and Britain-the two nations pushing for invasion - yielded very little, and "in none of these cases was there any weapons of mass destruction". Mohammed Elbaradei, of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), also expressed many doubts about the existence of WMD in Iraq (his opinions are featured later in this article).

Then there is Scott Ritter, a Marine and chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, has stated on numerous occasions that while Saddam Hussein was far from cooperative, he was also far from the threat that the White House was suggesting. Ritter was one of the most outspoken voices against the invasion in 2002 and early 2003, writing in a Boston Globe article in July 2002, "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them." Ritter further writes, "While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq." Ritter has often reiterated his determination that Iraq verifiably destroyed the bulk of its WMD in the years following the Gulf War, as well as predicting the problems of the post invasion occupation.

In the same article, Ritter states that all chemical and biological weapons Iraq was thought to have, either accounted for or unaccounted for, would have degraded, thereby posing no threat at all to the US or anyone else. What Scott Ritter was trying to get across is that the Bush administration was producing no evidence to demonstrate the threat they were presenting Saddam Hussein's Iraq to be. In his own words, "the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of, or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Faulty Intelligence?

Which brings us to the next faulty premise of the Bush apologists - it's-not-Bush's-fault- that-the-intelligence-was-wrong. As it turns out, when the White House tried to present any "factually based information", it turned out that it was never based on any facts or credible intelligence at all. In fact, there were blatant, documented attempts to distort and fabricate intelligence by the Bush administration-blowing a huge hole in the theory that Bush and his people were simply victimized by faulty intelligence.

In 2002, there was much talk from Bush administration officials about aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq, but intercepted in Jordan by the CIA and Jordanian Secret police in 2001. Iraq claimed they were to be used for conventional rockets, but the Bush administration claimed otherwise without any substantiation. For instance, then Bush National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is on record stating that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." However, the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) determined that the tubes were actually to be used for conventional rockets, a point they stressed with confidence in numerous reports and statements in January 2003. Elbaradei is also quoted as saying on March 7^th that, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." Still, even after these IAEA determinations, the White House tried desperately to use the aluminum tubes as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, with Secretary of State Colin Powell famously citing the tubes as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program in his February 5^th, 2003 presentation before the UN, and again on CNN's Late Edition on March 9^th. (Note-Powell's UN presentation also featured numerous trumped up and false claims other than those about the aluminum tubes)

Even more damning is a more notable claim concerning the alleged attempt by Iraq to buy yellow cake Uranium from the African country Niger. Even though the CIA and the US State Department determined as far back as early 2002 that the intelligence leading to this claim was inaccurate and based on faulty and forged information, George W Bush still cited the fake yellow cake deal in his January 2003 State of the Union address - the now infamous "16 words". Bush stated, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush also cited this false information in an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati. The claim was further debunked by former US diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, who after visiting Niger in February 2002 at the request of the CIA to investigate the dubious uranium deal, found no evidence to support any of it.

The Downing Street Memo would have been the stake through the heart of the Bush administration if the media were to give it the attention it deserves. This memo, which are the leaked minutes of a meeting of high level British government officials on July 23, 2002, demonstrates pretty clearly that the White House intended to invade Iraq regardless of the results of inspection, and that Bush & co planned on resorting to provoking Saddam if necessary, and that the policy would be "fixed" around the intelligence and used for political purposes. In general, the language used in the memo is unambiguous. The original memo shows the following:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

Is the World Better Off?

Lastly is the question often proposed by Bush apologists - isn't-the-world-better-off-now-without-Saddam-Hussein? This is classic simplistic idiot speak of the right. The fact that Saddam Hussein no longer holds power is probably the only good thing to come of this whole mess - of course - but it doesn't even come close to making any of it worthwhile. The unwarranted and illegal invasion of Iraq has resulted, so far, in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and nearly 4,000 American troops. It has created tens of thousands of severely and permanently wounded American troops - both physically and mentally. It has plunged Iraq into a civil war type situation for which there seems no end in sight. It has further destabilized an already destabilized region of the world. It has created animosity from once steady allies, and generally depleted the opinion foreigners hold for the US. It has coarsened the political climate in our own country. It has given terrorists a fertile ground for recruiting. It has enriched multi-national, war-profiteering corporations, who receive a good portion of the trillions of dollars this war will ultimately cost the American people, their children and grandchildren.

Given these realities, it is a disgusting shame that anyone would suggest the world is a better place because of the Iraq invasion and occupation.